27 Cranberry McBrownstone Plans Denied by LPC

By on June 7, 2011 4:36 pm in Architecture, Brooklyn Heights, Landmark Preservation

Hick Street resident/guest blogger Jeremy Lechtzin writes us, “This afternoon the Landmarks Preservation Commission unanimously denied the application [for new construction at 27 Cranberry Street].”

He adds that one LPC member suggested to the 27 Cranberry applicants “it’s time for a major rethinking” of their proposal.

Lechtzin adds that,  “LPC objected to the size (both height and depth), materials (brownstone, metal elements) and design (window placement, penthouse, etc.) so essentially he needs to come up with something completely different.”

BHB obtained photos of the planned design back in April. View them here.

DEVELOPING…

Share this Story:

  • Quinn Raymond

    Good lord… I try to keep my comments respectful but that facade looks like it got whipped by a post-modern ugly stick. Gah… the cornice… the bay window… yikes.

  • lori

    Very similar to the “tootsie roll house” on Columbia Hts

  • Jeffrey j Smith

    This is an age of uglyness, binality and lack of serious thought.

  • Demonter

    Keep the design true to the historical genres of the neighborhood and the process will move forward easily. Good going LPC…

  • M on Willow

    Does anyone know who the developer is?

  • A Neighbor

    This from a preservationist — and not a defense of the design. It is 2011, guys. It is simply bad design to do imitation 18th century buildings.

  • Cranberry Beret

    If you look at the comments from lpc posted in the other thread, I think the main concern was the McMansion aspect. They don’t want a supersized house, whether it’s imitation historical or modern.

  • carol

    I can just hear the residents of Brooklyn Heights (c. 1850), living in their lovely wooden federal houses or the handsome plain brick Greek revival houses, muttering about the new over scaled, ostentatious Italianate brownstones that were cropping up in the neighborhood. “Much too large” “The ornament is very tasteless, in fact, gaudy” “I much prefer brick to this new somber brownstone material” “Why does one need such a large home?”

  • my2cents

    I agree with “A neighbor.” Look at that piece of fake historicist crap they just built over Sleepy’s on Montague. Thanks to the LPC. That building could have been cool, but now it’s one of the most forgettable on the block. I agree that scale should be appropriate, but I don’t think the new building should be required to imitate the surrounding structures. From a purely legal point of view, if the guy is obeying the zoning regulations, shouldn’t he be allowed to build whatever he wants on his land? He isn’t tearing anything down.

  • Cranberry Beret

    Like I wrote above, I don’t think LPC said anything about requiring an imitation or historicist building.  If anything, something like the sleepys building or the new Pineapple Street building reflects lack of creativity by the architect for assuming LPC wants something imitative, instead of thinking hard about how to design a contextual modern building.  LPC reacts to what’s presented to them – if someone shows up with something inoffensive to the point of bland, they can try to nudge the architect in a different direction but it’s hard for them to justify an outright no.  BTW, like it or hate it, the landmarks law is layered on the zoning law – doesn’t matter if it’s a new building or a renovation.